Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

If we were to ban to tools used to commit crimes without addressing the root causes of the crimes being committed, then we'll leave a criminal class to look for new tools with which to commit their crimes.

If, however, we stop and think logically about the problem of "gun" violence, we come to realize that it isn't a GUN problem, but a VIOLENCE problem. Guns are simply handy tools with which to commit violence.

SO, let's do the difficult thing rather than the easy thing, and look to the root causes of the VIOLENCE problem and find ways to resolve them rather than ignoring the root cause.

To compare it to an HVAC system, if you've got undersized ductwork and aren't moving enough air and you're evaporator coil ices up daily, you don't just dump more gas into the system to overcharge it, you correct the airflow problem...

This kids doctor gave him meds he didn't need because the drug companies were pushing for sales.

That person jumped off a skyscraper balcony because they moved to the big city and got a stressful job for more pay.

This criminal got set free because his lawyer wrongly defended him for cash or because the judge took a bribe.

Mom and dad got a divorce because they were always fighting over financial issues.

A car malfunctioned and killed a family because the manufacturer used a plastic part in place of a metal one.

Dad lost his job because his company moved to mexico.

Not sure that's correct.

I know several families that would be considered "poor" yet they're not out robbing banks and killing folks.

I think that the problem runs a bit deeper than that.

The doctor gave him the pills because we, as a society, want a pill. We've been convinced that there is always a pill for the answer. Too fat? There's a pill for that. Too skinny? Yup, we got a pill for that, too.

That's just another symptom of the search for an easy answer rather than wanting to dig into the ROOT cause of the problem.

I think that laziness plays a bigger part than anyone wishes to admit.

I know several families that would be considered "poor" yet they're not out robbing banks and killing folks.

I think that the problem runs a bit deeper than that.

The doctor gave him the pills because we, as a society, want a pill. We've been convinced that there is always a pill for the answer. Too fat? There's a pill for that. Too skinny? Yup, we got a pill for that, too.

That's just another symptom of the search for an easy answer rather than wanting to dig into the ROOT cause of the problem.

I think that laziness plays a bigger part than anyone wishes to admit.

Well, since apparently NO ONE can logically describe WHY these tools are needed despite several attempts on my part to gain that information, I see little point in commenting further on posts that fail to address it.

As it stands at the moment, it is PRECISELY BECAUSE of that failure that I support this measure even though I think I have given fair opportunity to sway my opinion.

Just like any other political vote the day will be carried by moderates whom, it seems pretty clear, you are not capable of speaking to in a meaningful way.

That's why not only will I vote against you, but I also predict you will lose in a landslide.

If all you can do is speak the extremist language, then those are the sole votes you will carry.

Well, since apparently NO ONE can logically describe WHY these tools are needed despite several attempts on my part to gain that information, I see little point in commenting further on posts that fail to address it.

As it stands at the moment, it is PRECISELY BECAUSE of that failure that I support this measure even though I think I have given fair opportunity to sway my opinion.

Just like any other political vote the day will be carried by moderates whom, it seems pretty clear, you are not capable of speaking to in a meaningful way.

That's why not only will I vote against you, but I also predict you will lose in a landslide.

If all you can do is speak the extremist language, then those are the sole votes you will carry.

Well, I suggest that you consider that even though I have not called myself a republican since about mid-way through Shrub's second term, I still consider myself a Reagan conservative AND I have never, not once, voted against how the NRA would vote on ANY gun issue.

But I'm prepared to do so now. That should tell you something but clearly has not rung a bell with any of you.

what we need is more great wisdom about how the phrase "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means people CAN'T own guns

What people like you desperately need is an understanding of the process of interpreting our laws. Laws and rights are merely words on a piece of paper. These words alone, at their literal meaning, provide little in the way of context, historical realities, legal precedents, and the state of society. These words must be intepreted in all of these contexts. Our legal system provides a method of determining the proper meaning and intention within these contexts. This would be the appeals process which begins locally and ultimately the final decision is rendered by the SCOTUS.

Your view of constitutional law and its interpretation is shallow, unhistorical, lacking in any understanding of process and most unsettling, selfish.

bullsht
it's the job of every citizen to judge whether or not a law is uncostitutional and do everything within their power to correct a perverse law.

Yes, but then that is not what we were talking about.

The ultimate legal authority for intepreting law is the SCOTUS.

according to James Madison, the President is the last safe-guard in case the government fails, which means, the President has the power to strike down (not uphold) any unconstitutional law aprroved by government or the Supreme Court.

If the law passes Supreme Court review it is by legal definition and practice constitutional.

when the Constitution was written, the Federal courts needed approval from the states to interfere with laws.
it was only unconstitutional Civil War era politics that said everyone has to do what the feds say.

I believe you need to go look up Marbury vs. Madison 1803.

if you agree with Civil War era policy, then their own words say they will enforce the Bill of Rights in the states, which means it is the job of the Federal government to make sure everyone has unrestricted gun ownership.

That is neither the historically nor legally accurate.

who cares?
the ruling of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional

I believe I'm more persuaded by the legal precedents and legal logic of the SCOTUS than by the rantings of a rabidly partisan, untutored wrench turner.

you're using one pervert to justify another one

Ah, A reasoned legal argument.

show me in the U.S. Constitution where it says that.

It is in the intepretation which has long standing precedent.

the text of the Second Amendment gives any citizen the right to own what ever they can buy.

That would be the literal meaning of the words but it is also an unhistorical and legally insufficient intepretation of those words.

good.
that means we need people far more conservative on the Supreme Court than Scalia

I rather doubt the ranks of the John Birch Society and the KKK could provide a qualified candidate for this post.

according to Civil War era policy, it is now the job of the Supreme Court to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights in the states, which means every time a state passes an anti-gun law, it's the job of the Supreme Court to over-rule them.

they didjust that in te Heller case.

what the Supreme Court did in the Heller case was dismiss their responsibility to enforce the Second Amendment.